|
Five Immigration Myths Explained
Five Immigration Myths Explained - Anti-immigration groups, in their efforts to further restrict immigration and oppose any positive reforms to our immigration system, often propagate myths to support their agenda. Several of these myths are addressed below—together with facts to set the record straight.
Myth Number 1: Immigrants take jobs away from Americans.
It is not true that immigrants take jobs away from Americans. Here’s why:
* Immigrants do not increase unemployment among natives. A study by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore found that states with relatively high immigration actually experience low unemployment. The economists believed that it is likely immigration opens up many job opportunities for natives. They wrote, “First, immigrants may expand the demand for goods and services through their consumption. Second, immigrants may contribute to output through the investment of savings they bring with them. Third, immigrants have high rates of entrepreneurship, which may lead to the creation of new jobs for U.S. workers. Fourth, immigrants may fill vital niches in the low and high skilled ends of the labor market, thus creating subsidiary job opportunities for Americans. Fifth, immigrants may contribute to economies of scale in production and the growth of markets.” 1
* Research on immigration’s labor market consequences on minorities has also yielded information that suggests little negative impact. In her study on immigration’s impact on the wages and employment of black men, the Urban Institute’s Maria E. Enchautegui concluded, “The results show that in the 1980s black men were not doing worse in areas of high immigration than in other areas and that their economic status in high-immigration areas did not deteriorate during that decade.”2 The National Academy of Science study The New Americans, while finding there may be some impact of immigration on some African Americans locally, concluded that “While some have suspected that blacks suffer disproportionately from the inflow of lowskilled immigrants, none of the available evidence suggests that they have been particularly hard-hit on a national level.”3
* Even in particular sectors of the economy, the evidence of a negative impact of immigrants on natives is limited. A review of studies by Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute found that “The majority find no more evidence of displacement than is revealed by the aggregate data. Even studies of more highly skilled occupations, (e.g., registered nurses), find no strong evidence of displacement.”4
* Immigrants fill niches at the high and low ends of the labor market. This will be increasingly important in the future. As the U.S. population ages, many skilled workers and professionals will retire, leaving gaps for employers. Meanwhile, as jobs in the skilled professions become more attractive, natives will continue the trend of gaining higher levels of education and abandoning lower skilled jobs. (Today, less than 10 percent of native-born Americans have not completed high school.) That will create gaps at the lower end of the job market, as the demand in health care, hospitality, and other service jobs increases as the U.S. population ages.
* Some wage studies are dubious. Harvard economist George Borjas has argued that immigrants lower the wages of native high school dropouts. His theory is that these impacts do not show up locally, since natives move out of state in response to immigrants moving into an area. However, research by Columbia University economist Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz shows the flaw in Borjas’ theory, since Rivera-Batiz found that native out-migration in states that receive many immigrants is barely measurable and to the extent it occurs it is college-educated natives who have left, presumably for a variety of reasons. Rivera-Batiz concluded that “Although the supply of workers with less than a high school education has been increased by immigration, both theory and empirical evidence suggest that there has been very little, if any, impact of immigration on the wages of high-school dropouts.”5
* There is no such thing as a fixed number of jobs. Contrary to the belief that an increasing number of people compete for a static number of jobs, in fact, the number of jobs in America has increased by 15 million between 1990 and 2003, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor).6 Between 2000 and 2010, more than 33 million new job openings will be created in the United States that require only little or moderate training, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This will represent 58 percent of all new job openings.7
Myth Number 2: Most immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy or treasury
Here’s the truth about immigrants, taxes and the economy:
* All individuals who work in the United States are required to pay federal income taxes. The only exception is if they are exempted due to their level of earnings, a provision of the tax code that results in no taxes, or a bilateral tax treaty.
* Significant total taxes are paid by immigrants. Immigrant households paid an estimated $133 billion in direct taxes to federal, state, and local governments in 1997, according to a study by Cato Institute economist Steve Moore.8
* State level tax payments approximate natives. Immigrants in New York State pay over $18 billion a year in taxes, over 15 percent of the total, and roughly proportional to 3 their size in the state’s population, according to a study by the Urban Institute. Average annual tax payments by immigrants are approximately the same as natives—$6,300 for immigrants versus $6,500 natives.9
* Long-run benefit. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that “Over the long run an additional immigrant and all descendants would actually save the taxpayers $80,000.”10
* States come out ahead. In Congressional testimony, University of California, Berkeley economist Ronald Lee, the principal author of the fiscal analysis in the National Academy of Sciences study, concluded that a dynamic analysis, with the appropriate assumptions, would likely show that 49 of the 50 states come out ahead fiscally from immigration, with California a close call.11
* Some of the Academy study is misused. Professor Lee testified that some have misinterpreted the Academy study’s use of the annual costs of immigrant households to argue that immigrants are a large fiscal cost to states. He has stated that “These numbers [annual costs of immigrant households] do not best represent the panel’s findings and should not be used for assessing the consequences of immigration policies.” He found that it is misleading, on an annual basis, to calculate the schoolage, native-born children of immigrants as costs caused by immigrant households but not to include the taxes paid by those children when they enter the workforce. Professor Lee also testified: “Reducing immigration would make it more difficult to support the health and retirement of the baby boom generation.”12
* Overall economic benefits of immigration. The report by the National Academy of Sciences also found that immigrants benefit the U.S. economy overall, have little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans, and may add as much as $10 billion to the economy each year. As a result, the report concluded, most Americans enjoy a healthier economy because of the increased supply of labor and lower prices resulting from immigration.13
* Economists agree on immigration’s benefits. In a poll of eminent economists conducted by the CATO Institute in the mid-1980s and updated in 1990, 81 percent of the respondents opined that, on balance, twentieth-century immigration has had a “very favorable” effect on U.S. economic growth.14 Moreover, 56 percent of the economists polled believed that more immigration would have the most favorable impact on the U.S. standard of living, while another 33 percent felt that the current levels of immigration would have the most favorable impact.15
Myth Number 3: America is being overrun by immigrants.
Here are the facts on immigration statistics:
* The number of immigrants living in the United States remains relatively small as a percentage of the total population. While the percentage of U.S. residents who are foreign-born is higher today than it was in 1970 (currently about 11 percent), it is still less than the 14.7 percent who were foreign-born in 1910.16
* The annual rate of legal immigration is low by historical measures. Only 3 legal immigrants per 1,000 U.S. residents enter the United States each year, compared to 13 immigrants per 1,000 in 1913.17
* The 2000 Census found that 22 percent of U.S. counties lost population between 1990 and 2000. Rather than “overrunning” America, immigrants tend to help revitalize demographically declining areas of the country, most notably urban centers.18
Myth Number 4: Immigrants aren’t really interested in becoming part of American society.
Here’s information about immigrants’ feelings about the country and the future:
* Immigrants more optimistic about nation’s future. “A poll of Hispanics finds they are far more optimistic about life in the United States and their children’s prospects than are non-Latinos,” according to an August 2003 New York Times/CBS News poll.19
* Immigrants identify with America. “Nearly 70 percent of foreign-born Hispanics say they identify more with the United States than with their country of origin,” according to the New York Times/CBS News poll. Only 16 percent, including those here fewer than 5 years, said they identify more closely with their native country.20
* Immigrants believe in the American Dream. A CNN/USA Today poll reported that more immigrants than natives believe that hard work and determination are the keys to success in America, and that fewer immigrants than natives believe that immigrants should be encouraged to “maintain their own culture more strongly.”21
* Immigrant children learn English. In San Diego 90 percent of second-generation immigrant children speak English well or very well, according to a Johns Hopkins University study. In Miami the figure is 99 percent.22
* Naturalization rates rising. Statistics from the 2000 census indicate a steady rise in the naturalization rates of immigrants. In 2000, slightly more than 37 percent of all foreign-born residents were naturalized, a 3 percent increase from 1997.23
* Immigrants want to become proficient in English. Reports from throughout the United States indicate that the demand for classes in English as a second language far outstrips supply. Data from fiscal year 2000 indicate that 65 percent of immigrants over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home speak English “very well” or “well.”24 The children of immigrants, although bilingual, prefer English to their native tongue at astounding rates. In fact, the grandparents and parents of immigrant children have expressed some concern that their youngsters are assimilating too quickly.
* Immigrants learn English. Only 3 percent of long-term immigrants report not speaking English well, according the National Academy of Sciences.25
Myth Number 5: Immigrants contribute little to American society.
The facts show that immigrants contribute significantly to America:
* Immigrants show positive characteristics. A Manhattan Institute report showed that immigrants are more likely than are the native born to have intact families and a college degree and be employed, and they are no more likely to commit crimes.26
* High levels of education for legal immigrants. According to the New Immigrant Survey, which measures only legal immigrants, “The median years of schooling for the legal immigrants, 13 years, is a full one year higher than that of the U.S. native-born.” The New Immigrant Survey is a project headed by the Rand Corporation’s Jim Smith.27
* Immigrants help with the retirement of baby boom generation. While countries in Europe and elsewhere will experience a shrinking pool of available workers, the United States, due to its openness to immigration, will continue healthy growth in its labor force and will reap the benefits of that growth. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that “Immigration, if we choose to expand it, could prove an even more potent antidote for slowing growth in the working-age population.”28
* Foreign-born expertise aids U.S. research and development. Foreign-born scientists and engineers make up 28 percent of all individuals with PhDs in the United States engaged in research and development in science and engineering, helping to spur innovation.29
* Immigrants contribute to entrepreneurship. Inc. Magazine reported in 1995 that 12 percent of the Inc. 500—the fastest growing corporations in America—were companies started by immigrants.
Our understanding of the meaning of American patriotism would not be complete without considering the pride and commitment immigrants demonstrate on behalf of the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Defense:
* More than 60,000 immigrants serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
* Immigrants make up nearly 5 percent of all enlisted personnel on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
* Nearly 7 percent of U.S. Navy enlisted personnel are immigrants.30
Historically immigrants have made significant contributions to the defense of America:
* More than 20 percent of the recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor in U.S. wars have been immigrants, a total of 716 of the 3,406 Medal of Honor recipients have been immigrants.
* 500,000 immigrants fought in the Union Army during the Civil War.
* A special regimental combat team made up of the sons of Japanese immigrants was the most decorated of its size during World War II.
* Major U.S. weapons, such as a more advanced ironclad ship, the submarine, the helicopter, and the atomic and hydrogen bombs were developed by immigrants.31
* On July 3, 2002, President Bush recognized the contributions of immigrants in the U.S. Armed Forces by signing an executive order that provided for “expedited naturalization” of noncitizen men and women serving on active-duty since September 11, 2001. The order granted some 15,000 members of the U.S. military who served fewer than three years the right to apply for expedited citizenship in recognition of their service.
* After the passage of Section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 143,000 noncitizen military participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the U.S. military who fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American citizens, according to White House statistics.32
* At a time when Americans value patriotism more than ever, immigrants demonstrate that they are a part of this spirit through their service in the military. Paul Bucha, President of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, has stated: “I put to you that there is a standard by which to judge whether America is correct to maintain a generous legal immigration policy: Have immigrants and their children and grandchildren been willing to fight and die for the United States of America? The answer right up to the present day remains a resounding ‘yes.’”33
Conclusion
In sum, who are these people we call immigrants? They could be your parents, your grandparents, your teachers, your friends, your doctors, your policemen, your grocer, your waiter, your cook, your babysitter, your gardener, your lawyer, your favorite actor, actress, or sports hero, your shopkeeper. Immigrants permeate the fabric of America. They are an integral part of our society, its goals and its values. The backbone that helps make this country great, they set us apart from every nation in this world. In short, they are us.
47DP3002 8/14/03
Footnotes
1 Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Stephen Moore, Immigration and Unemployment: New Evidence,Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA (Mar. 1994) at p. 13.
2 Maria E. Enchautegui, “The Effect of Immigration on the Wages and Employment of Black Males,” Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. (May 1993) at p. 17.
3 The New Americans, National Research Council, 1997, p. S-5.
4 Jeffrey S. Passel, Immigrants and Taxes: A Reappraisal of Huddle’s ‘The Cost of Immigration’, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. (Jan. 1994) at p. 51.
5  http://www.columbia.edu/~flr9/
6 Council of Economic Advisers. Economic Report of the President 2003, Table B-37.
7 Daniel E. Hecker, “Occupational Employment Projections to 2010,” Monthly Labor Review (Nov. 2001).
8 http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm.
9 http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900094
10 Testimony of Ronald D Lee, Member, National Academy of Sciences Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration, Before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, “Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration,” (Sept. 9, 1997).
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 The New Americans, supra note 3.
14 Julian L. Simon, “Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts,” Cato Institute and National Immigration Forum (Dec. 11, 1995).
15 Ibid.
16 Griswold, Daniel T., “Immigrants Have Enriched American Culture and Enhanced Our Influence in the World,” Insight on the News (Feb. 18, 2002).
17 The New Americans, supra note 3.
18 Ibid.
19 Simon Romero and Janet Elder, “Hispanics in the U.S. Report Optimism,” New York Times (Aug. 6, 2003).
20 Ibid.
21 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-29.html.
22 Ibid.
23 American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) Policy Report “Realities of Immigration Emerge in 2000 Census” (Mar. 2002).
24 Elizabeth Grieco, “English Abilities of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population,” Migration Policy Institute (Jan. 1, 2003).
25 The New Americans, supra note 3. The report stated that, according to the 1990 Census, “of those who had been here 30 years or more, only 3 percent reported that they could not speak English well.”
26 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-29.html.
27 Stuart Anderson, “Muddled Masses,” Reason (Feb. 2000).
28 Testimony of Alan Greenspan before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate (Feb. 27, 2003).
29 Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, National Science Foundation.
30 AILF Policy Report, “U.S. Soldiers from Around the World: Immigrants Fight for an Adopted Homeland” (updated Mar. 2003).
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
 Homepage:: http://organiccollective.org
Please Don't Feed the Trolls
Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." San Diego IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.
-- San Diego Indymedia volunteers
|
|
Download this article in pdf format >>
Make a quick comment on this article>>
|
I don't have the time to correct all the misinformation in this article but I do want to congratulate you on attempting to talk about the issues instead of the "racist" name calling.
Dirk
5 myths of immigration poster pdf file -
Please disprove all of this 'misinformation' that hundreds of independent agencies and researches have gathered over a period of 50 years, dirk. Thank you.
o.r.g.a.n.i.c. collective
Homepage::
pdf of 5 myths poster -
another pdf version
o.r.g.a.n.i.c. collective
Homepage::
edited version
The sources tell it all. Once you understand who the sources are, it’s easy to cut through the doublespeak.
For example: consider the sources of “Myth Number 1”.
The Cato Institute is a laissez faire capitalist think tank and so are its writers like Steve More. In the Cato Institute mindset, the economy is healthy when the capitalists are making lots of money, i.e., when lots of workers are living in poverty.
Economist Richard Vedder wrote an article about teachers wages being too high. It’s posted at the Hoover Institute – a right wing capitalist web site. He is adjunct scholar of the right wing militarist, imperialist, think-tank called The American Enterprise Institute. He told the US House of Representatives last April that he thinks the cuts in welfare over the last decade weren’t deep enough. He recommends privatizing welfare and social security.
Economist Lowell Galloway and Richard Veddar appear to be cronies. Key search either name on the internet and several hits are likely to come up that show both economists listed together. Both have written for “The Federal Observer” - a McCarthyite right wing publication that claims President Franklin Roosevelt’s policies created and prolonged the depression of the 1930s.
Economist Steven Moore is connected to the Cato Institute – a right wing think tank. He was formerly its director of fiscal policy studies. Go to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_Moore and learn more about Moore. He’s so far to the right that he runs an organization that focuses on defeating moderate Republicans.
Their rhetoric like “immigrants have high rates of entrepreneurship, which may lead to the creation of new jobs for American workers” and “immigrants may fill niches in the low and high skilled ends of the labor market, thus creating subsidiary job opportunities for Americans” and “ immigrants may contribute to economies of scale in production and the growth of markets” is a familiar tune is subjective at best. (Notice the use of the word “may” here).
The capitalists keep telling us this nonsense yet the truth is, wages for American workers remain stagnant while benefits, especially healthcare and pensions are deteriorating. In short, the overall standard of living for American workers has been on a decline for decades yet, if you listen to these economists you’d think everybody is living out the American dream.
Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute is quoted. Go to http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=42 and read about the Urban Institute. At the bottom of the page it says: "Reach the right audiences. We direct our research findings to multiple audiences: policymakers, program administrators, other researchers and university students, the media, nonprofit advocacy organizations, STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and that important segment of the public that follows policy debates through the daily news." The “STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR” are today’s bosses, the wealthy class. The Urban Institute, which was created in the 1960s, seems to be controlled by laissez faire capitalists.
Myth Number 1 goes on to promote the half-truth that since jobs are always being created, no jobs are being lost. The question isn’t whether or not new jobs are being created. The question is what kind of new jobs are being created. And the answer to that question is low paying jobs. The article sights the US Dept of Labor. The USDL also reports that high paying jobs are leaving the US. During the first two years of Bush’s first term about 1.5 million jobs left the US, most of which were in the manufacturing sector, where the pay is better.
Myth Number 1 is a myth. Immigrants are taking good paying jobs while other good paying jobs are leaving by the millions. In short, American workers are getting double screwed. Immigrants are taking more and more of the good paying jobs that remain. The meat packing industry is a prime example. Other skilled trades that have been infiltrated by immigrants are construction and metal working trades. To say that millions of Mexicans crossing into the US have absolutely no effect at all on American workers’ wages is typical capitalist propaganda. Immigration is a key ingredient in the neo liberalization of the American economy.
The rest of the article follows the same trend. In short, it’s just another laissez faire capitalist argument for immigration that uses rhetoric like “growth of the economy” and “creating new jobs” to try an convince working people that everything is peachy. To the capitalists the economy is “healthy” when the workers standard of living is going down and when millionaires are turning into billionaires. And the economy is unhealthy when rich people aren’t getting richer.
I suspect the Libertarian Party is behind this. That would mean that the Organic Collective, whose name appears on the above PDF file, is probably a Libertarian Party front group. Note that “Organic Collective” is a socialist-sounding name. It shows us that at least some of the pro-immigration movement has a hard-core capitalist agenda.
Is it just a coincidence that Bush, the Libertarian Party, the bosses and the anarchists are all on the same side on the immigration issue?
amadeus
the problem is not with immigration. people dont mind when people from other countries move in, become citizens, start businesses, etc. we do mind when thousands of people enter the country illegaly every day. immigrants do pay taxes and thats cool. illegal immigrants do not pay taxes and we take care of them with our hard work. the border needs to be controlled.
timothy
Actually, timothy, illegal immigrants take care of YOU with all the agricultural work they do in this country for slave wages (i.e., below the official poverty line) in unhealthy conditions without job stability, security, or benefits.
Every one of us, of course, is involved in the illegal labor market. Although specific numbers are impossible to come by, an estimated 7-million to 8-million illegal immigrants live in the United States. The largest group is agricultural workers. If you eat, you rely on their work.
Over %90 of all domestic agricultural products in the United States are produced in California, which is worked, DAY to DAY, by illegal immigrants. In other words, you would probably starve to death without them. You should not only thank them, you should probably repay them too.
Borders are Illegal
Actually, the organic collective is an anarchist collective. We make decisions using consensus, have a non-hierarchical structure, and work within the People's Global Action (PGA) Hallmarks, which are the following:
(As agreed to by social movements at the PGA Conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia, August 2001)
1. A very clear rejection of capitalism, imperialism and feudalism; all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation;
2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings;
3. A confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational capital is the only real policy-maker;
4. A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of local alternatives to global capitalism;
5. An organisational philosophy based on decentralisation and autonomy.
O.R.G.A.N.I.C. stands for Opposing Repression Globally and Nurturing Independent Communities.
-
I wish we were a front group for something other volunteer community
organizers, then we might not be as broke and exhausted as we are. :)
we are everywhere
You are defending capitalist immigration, which in this case means the exploitation of millions of workers from Mexico, the lowering of workers wages in Mexico and in the US and the wrecking of the labor movements in both countries.
And the irony of it is you have to use the most sickening capitalist (laissez faire) and imperialist (immigrants joining the US military) arguments to support your position while you claim to be anti-capitalists/anti-imperialists.
You’re living proof that Lenin was right when he said: “An anarchist is a bourgeois turned inside out.”
fletcher
First of all these "sources" are ones many have never heard of before, which makes me wonder how hard the articles researches had to dig to find these "truths" which have quite small percentages of immigrant advantage. 60,000 immigrants on active duty in the armed forces? Compared to how many Americans exactly?
These "myths" are unfortunately a sad reality. They are not propaganda put forth by a small dissatisfied group, but the voices of the majority of Americans who are tired of decline in their country's quality of life. I am in the trenches of these immigrant populated neighborhoods and I see the way it is first hand. My experiences are my statistics. I pesonally know many buisiness owners who hire only immigrants because they will work for less money than American workers, therefore taking jobs from American workers is not a myth at all. These immigrants are for the most part paid "under the table" and do not pay taxes, therefore weakening the American economy. Never mind the fact that these immigrant workers, whom I remind you I personally know, send the majotiy of their pay back to their native countries, yet again, weakening the economy as that money is not being spent here.
As far as another's comment that I/we should be thanking immigrants and paying them back for agriculture or I/we would "starve" is insane. American and mom & pop farms are rapidly being shut down beacause the government is outsourcing or these agricultural jobs are going to immigrants. The land and food is still there, the jobs for Americans aren't.It is one of the top ten declining buisinesses for Americans. Look it up. It will soon be obsolete. That is not something to be thankful for.
The number of 3 immigrants per 1,000 American citizens is so low because the majority of immigrants are entering America illegally! Our government has made it much easier to come here illegally, even offering assistance to illegals, so why should they do it the proper legal way?
"Revitalizing urban areas"? That is a horrible joke. I live in New York , the 5 boroughs are not being "revitalized" by anyone other than large corporations who decide to take over and rebuild area like Harlem and Long Island City.I have seen these boroughs only decline throughout the years of influx of overpopulation of immigrants. The five latin restaurants or Chinese markets or Irish bars on one block is hardly a "revitalization". Neither is the declining quality of life with 10 to 15 immigrants per 1 or 2 bedroom apartment above and below me. Or the fact that I get harassed not sometimes, but every single day by people harassing me in other languages. Or the fact that my car has been hit ONLY by immigrants who buy their licenses and do not know the driving laws therefore do not obey them. Then they yell at you in a foreign language because they ran the red light.Take cab drivers for instance. Need I say more? Outside the bank near a popular subway station on 46th Street & Queens Blvd. a group of mexicans whisper in spanish to passerby ,asking if they need to buy a social security number. EVERY DAY. I wonder whose numbers they are selling...
I cannot go to a store in my neighborhood without asking for someone who speaks english so I can order my sandwich or buy an item. And I'm told every day, "no english". If they do speak some english their accents are so hard to understand it is pointless anyway. Be it Latin, Middle Eastern, European , Asian-it doesn't matter.Everyday errands are a chore due to language or cultural barriers. And why should they learn english? They most certainly don't need to anymore. Instead it takes you just a little longer to get through to an operator because you have to wait and press #1 for english.
Never mind the crime factor. It is a known fact that poverty increases crime and the majority (if not all) of the poverty stricken areas where I am are immigrant ruled. Probably because they work for less money and therefore cannot afford to live elsewhere.Just watch the news people. I am personally witnessing the decline of good quality of life in mine and others neighborhoods. The immigrants are moving in, the Americans are moving out, the rents are decreasing, the property value as well, and so on in a domino effect.
In the early days of immigration, immigrants came to our country for a better life and made one. They built this country. If this was the way things still were, immigration wouldn't be a problem. But now, they don't need to work as hard, our government already provides for them. Actually I do, and so do you if you are a tax paying citzen. They don't need to build this country, they only have to come here. It is up to American citizens to urge our capitalist mess of a government to ensure stricter and better immigration policies. Or to at least enforce the existing ones. We need to ensure immigrants are coming here to better our country and themselves and nothing else. Whoever beleives that immigrants come to America beacuse they love it and want a to become part of it is just naive in these times. This is not 1913, and America is not the promised land. Just ask the immigrants in my area, as I have (in their languages of course) and they will tell you. Just ask the 9/11 attackers.
Juliet
My farm which my family has had for over thirty years, and will now be shut down due to illegal immigrants providing the agriculture instead.
Thanks.
Davis
Um, actually borders are legal... Not that you can tell by the way things are going...
Lee
You can tell how limited the minds are of the people who wrote the "Myth" article by the way they only refer to Hispanic immigrants. There are other ones you know.
Leann
Most problems blamed on undocumented immigrants by people like the Minutemen and the CTCIC, are problems that are systematic to capitalism, and happen in one form or another to all non-super-rich people. The forces that drive capitalism, especially global-corporate capitalism is profit over people, the true power demarcations in this type of system are not national, they are based on socio-economics. Global capital has a financial vise-grip on much of the world.
One of the biggest issues these anti-immigrant groups have with migrant workers is the effect they have on wages. The laborer is guilty of no crime other than wishing to work for a living, possibly to support a family and survive, and an employer is exploiting him or her. This employer is operating in a system by which profit is made and success is measured in how little you can pay your workers. If the corporations don’t have undocumented workers to exploit, they will find somebody else to screw out of a buck, or send the work overseas.
These groups also level the accusation that by using our hospitals and clinics migrants drive up the cost of health care for everyone else. Again, the idea of motivating a medical system with the ultimate goal of profit over people, is a flawed one. The migrants are committing no infraction more condemnable than attempting to make their life better and the big pharma and medical companies are the ones exploiting people and making huge wads of cash doing it.
If we move to the other side of the capitalist vice-grip I mentioned before, we have “Free Trade” policies and international economic organizations that maximize profits acting as henchmen for corporate interests in less “developed” countries at the expense of the workers, paying un-livable wages. The poverty in many of the countries the bulk of the undocumented immigrants come from that is forcing them to migrant is the cruel bi product of global corporate capitalism, and when they get here they are faced with just another face of the beast.
The point that we must remember, and that must be stressed with anti-immigrant types is that the people who profit are the people to blame, they are the cause, the issues blamed on undocumented immigration are just the symptoms and blaming the people who are risking everything just to work for a better life, is to blame innocent people.
Guerilla Science
Homepage::
Lenin was a brutal tyrant who helped destroy the russian revolution and if you want to talk shit on anarchists by quoting Lenin and side with the nationalist capitalists then you are more then welcome to. Borders are used as a tool to divide and exploit labor. Neoliberalism is the problem, and immigration is one symptom. I think immigration controls are facist, but if you have a big problem with immigration then I suggest you go after neo-liberalism, not economic refugess. It will make you seem less racist.
Timothy obviously didnt read the myths (especially #2)and wants to continue to propogate this nonsense about immigrants being a drain on taxpayers. I suspect alterior motives Timmy.
And our friend from New York. Learn another language and get over it whitey. for Christ sake stop scapegoating immigrants for the problems of capitalism.
rich
I can’t help it if you believe everything the fascists say about Lenin. I know you don’t like the word democracy, but Lenin was a democratic representative of the workers and the peasants. Without the leadership of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party the Russian Socialist Revolution of 1917 would have never happened.
The one who is siding with the nationalist capitalists is you. Consider Myth Number 5 where it talks about immigrant patriots. The notion that immigrant US mercenaries, who are willing do US imperialist dirty work in exchange for US citizenship, are an asset to US society is repulsive. It makes for a good argument against immigration, not an argument for it - unless that is, you’re some kind of imperialist fascist.
But that’s the position you support. In other words, you think immigrants who do US imperialist dirty work are valuable to this society and therefore we should open up the floodgates of anarchy and welcome them so they can join the US military and kill, kill, kill for the rich and take jobs from US workers, wreck the labor movements in the US and in Mexico and drive workers’ wages down in both countries. Your name is “rich”. I can’t think of a better name for you.
fletcher
I just want to make sure it's damn clear that many socialists & Leninists (in fact, just about all except this person) stand on the side of immigrants' rights. Lenin and Trotsky were internationalists, and believed, as we should today, that borders were false demarcations and that self-determination of all people was a prerequisite to social equality. This person is smearing Marxist ideas with their pseudo-workerist, jingoistic posts.
local socialist
Fletcher DOES NOT represent all socialists! I just want to make that clear. He tends to side with the ultra vanguardist jingoist-racist-socialist variety, which sifts through our ranks ever once in a while. There are many strands of socialism, yet within the majority of them there is a strong committment to immigrants rights and justice for all undocumented people. Take your fascist interpretations of socialism and go join the minutemen, fletch.
shirley
Homepage::
Local Socialist: ““I just want to make sure it's damn clear that many socialists & Leninists (in fact, just about all except this person) stand on the side of immigrants' rights. Lenin and Trotsky were internationalists, and believed, as we should today, that borders were false demarcations and that self-determination of all people was a prerequisite to social equality. This person is smearing Marxist ideas with their pseudo-workerist, jingoistic posts.”
Fletcher: I’m for workers’ rights in all countries. I just don’t think workers in country A have a right to take millions of jobs from the workers in country B. I don’t buy the above neo liberal capitalist argument that immigrants are not taking jobs from American workers. I don’t see supporting immigrant workers rights to take American workers’ jobs as a solution to poverty in Mexico or poverty in the US. I believe it is destroying the labor movements in both countries, making it more difficult to change.
Fletcher: If immigrant workers coming here were energizing the labor movement in the US I’d be welcoming them at the border with open arms. But as it stands, in general, they are not helping the labor movement here. And there’s a good reason for that. Nearly all the immigrants coming here refused to be part of the labor struggles in their original countries. Immigration to the US is seen in third world countries and in parts of Europe as well, as an alternative to class struggle. We have enough class traitors, anti-unionists, snitches, opportunists, boss wannabes, etc in the US. We don’t need millions more of them coming over here and wrecking what’s left of the gains that were so hard fought for in the past. The bottom line is, if you’re coming here to be part of the class struggle, then I say “welcome brothers and sisters”. If not, then fix your own labor movements instead of wrecking ours. Don’t Run, Organize!
Fletcher: The minutemen are small time fascists. So what does the white left in the US do? It borrows pro-caspitalist immigration rhetoric from the big time fascist/imperialists like Bush and the laissez faire capitalists like the Libertarian Party while it gives the minutemen a media circus stage to whip up xenophobia. Nice work white leftists. Bash the workers in the US for disagreeing with you - making them more reactionary in the process (as if they aren’t already reactionary enough) then call yourselves Socialists.
Fletcher: Marx and Lenin wanted the workers’ state – a temporary state that, under the correct leadership of the Communist Party through time, would eventually “whither away”. They were internationalists and they knew that borders divide working people. However, they didn’t believe that borders could be torn down overnight like the anarchists do. Trotsky had a different theory. He was against the workers’ state. He wanted “continuous revolution” – a contorted non-Marxist-Leninist theory. Trotsky was a traitor to the Socialist Revolution of the USSR. Right before WWII the Trotskyites inside the USSR organized a fifth column to help Hitler destroy the USSR. Trotsky planned to invade the US from Mexico while Hitler invaded the USSR. As we all know, both plans failed. To call Trotsky an internationalist is a half-truth – he was an internationalist only in the sense that he was an international criminal who was in cahoots with Hitler. The person who is smearing Marxist ideas is you. Trotskyites are pseudo Marxist-Leninists.
Shirley: “Fletcher DOES NOT represent all socialists! I just want to make that clear. He tends to side with the ultra vanguardist jingoist-racist-socialist variety, which sifts through our ranks ever once in a while. There are many strands of socialism, yet within the majority of them there is a strong committment to immigrants rights and justice for all undocumented people. Take your fascist interpretations of socialism and go join the minutemen, fletch.”
Fletcher: Shirley represents the typical white leftist in the US. Her favorite (and only) tactic is to call everyone who disagrees with her a racist. She would defend the above article “Five Myths About Immigration” even though it’s clearly the propaganda of the most vile capitalists and imperialists. As I pointed out earlier, how can anyone defend immigration on the basis that it provides a fresh supply of murderous mercenaries for the US imperialist military? Way to go Shirley! Attack the messenger instead of debating what the messenger is saying. Shirley, you need to take a look in the mirror if you want to see who the real racist is.
Fletcher: When someone can convince me that welcoming millions of immigrants to the US is going to bring us any closer to Socialism, I’ll be willing to admit I’m wrong. Until then, I’m sticking to what I’ve said.
fletcher
Fletch:
If you really are what you say you are, then I don't understand your arguments at all. Are you asking Mexican workers to refrain from improving their lots and feeding their families by fighting "the Revolution" in Mexico? And if so, why aren't you arguing EVEN MORE vigorously the same advice to the MANY MORE workers who have emigrated from Deep South, "right-to-work" states WITHIN the United States, for the same reasons? Why the inconsistency? And why should anyone think that such inconsistency is motivated by anything but the most narrowminded ethnocentrism and bigotry?
Perhaps more to the point, exactly to WHOM are you addressing your arguments? Is it to Mexican workers? Or is it to other leftists? You really should clarify this a bit more precisely. When you say, "These workers don't have a right..." it sounds an awful lot like you are lecturing THEM. And it sounds an awful lot like you are endorsing a very UNLEFTIST enthusiasm for nationalism and arbitrary divisions between people. It would be one thing if you could credibly argue that you are actually proposing an alternative that will actually help SOME workers SOMEWHERE. But of course, you aren't. Do you really think that Mexican workers are going to heed your superior wisdom, see the "folly of their ways," and stay put to fight the Revolution back home as you have instructed them? Or do you really think that, after a couple hundred years or more of immigration to this country proceeding apace, despite every effort of nativists and bigots to impede it, that it will stop now?
A more realistic and less counterproductive use of the limited breath in your body would be to agitate for strategies that build links of solidarity between workers everywhere, instead of walls of opposition and mutual animosity.
me
me “If you really are what you say you are, then I don't understand your arguments at all.”
fletcher: You don’t understand my arguments because you are an anarchist -a bourgeois turned inside out.
me: “Are you asking Mexican workers to refrain from improving their lots and feeding their families by fighting "the Revolution" in Mexico?”
fletcher: You are asking American workers to step aside and refrain from improving their lots and feeding their families so Mexican workers can sneak across the border and take their jobs. Are there no poor working people in the US? Is Mexico the only country that has poor working people? Talk about nationalism.
fletcher: I’m telling all immigrants: “Don’t Run, Organize”. I’m not asking Mexican workers to FIGHT “the revolution” in Mexico. I’m telling them to JOIN it, JOIN the class struggle, REBUILD the Mexican labor movement instead of wrecking it and wrecking the American labor movement by coming here and taking American workers’ jobs. “ALL POWER TO THE MEXICAN WORKERS IN MEXICO. ALL POWER TO THE AMERICAN WORKERS IN THE US! SOLIDARITY BETWEEN MEXICAN WORKERS AND US WORKERS.” Solidarity begins with respect. How respectful are Mexican workers who come to the US, taking American workers’ jobs, driving our wages down and refusing to join the class struggle? Are American workers driving Mexican workers’ wages down?
me: “And if so, why aren't you arguing EVEN MORE vigorously the same advice to the MANY MORE workers who have emigrated from Deep South, "right-to-work" states WITHIN the United States, for the same reasons? Why the inconsistency? And why should anyone think that such inconsistency is motivated by anything but the most narrowminded ethnocentrism and bigotry?”
fletcher: If immigrant workers would stop pouring into the southern US and wrecking the labor movement there, southern US workers might be able to get their labor act together. Show me a “right to work state” and I’ll show you a state that has plenty of cheap immigrant labor. I would even venture to say that the proliferation of “right to work states” in the US is a product of cheap immigrant labor, the kind that refuses to join the class struggle.
me: “Perhaps more to the point, exactly to WHOM are you addressing your arguments? Is it to Mexican workers? Or is it to other leftists? You really should clarify this a bit more precisely. When you say, "These workers don't have a right..." it sounds an awful lot like you are lecturing THEM.
fletcher: My arguments are in defense of the better interests of the workers of the world. I’m addressing whoever thinks that welcoming millions of immigrants into the US to take the jobs of American workers is progressive, Socialistic or revolutionary, etc. I can’t help it if it sounds like a lecture. The people who call American workers racists and bigots for not supporting immigrants’ rights to take American workers’ jobs sound an awful lot to me like they are lecturing American workers. In the white left mindset it’s OK to race bait and lecture American workers, but the moment an American worker speaks out against immigrant workers taking American workers’ jobs he/she becomes a nationalist/racist lecturer. I don’t have a right to address the workers in another country, but those workers have a right sneak across the borders and take American workers’ jobs, wreck the unions in the US and drive workers’ wages down?
me: “And it sounds an awful lot like you are endorsing a very UNLEFTIST enthusiasm for nationalism and arbitrary divisions between people.
flechter: Considering your bourgeois views, when you call me “UNLEFTIST” I take that as a compliment. When someone can show me how millions of workers, who come to the US to avoid the class struggle in their countries of origin and who are willing to accept whatever conditions that the US bosses dictate in exchange for “a shot at the American dream”, are going to help anyone other than themselves and the capitalists, I’ll be willing to admit that I’ve been wrong on this issue. But so far, nobody has come up with a logical argument to defend capitalist immigration. And that is exactly what you’re defending – capitalist immigration. On the issue of nationalism. I think it’s pretty nationalistic to stand at the US-Mexican border and welcome Mexican workers into the US to take American workers jobs. It’s also pretty divisive when you consider the number of American workers that you’re antagonizing and race baiting.
fletcher: American workers don’t by your capitalist rhetoric that millions of immigrants sneaking across the borders, driving wages down, wrecking our unions, is a good thing. We know that immigration is profitable for the capitalists, but it’s at our expense and the expense of the workers who choose to join the class struggles in their countries instead of sneaking into the US.
me: “It would be one thing if you could credibly argue that you are actually proposing an alternative that will actually help SOME workers SOMEWHERE. But of course, you aren't.
fletcher: Whose alternative is credible here? Who is being helped by your alternative to class struggle, immigration? Well, we know it helps the capitalists out tremendously. They’re getting richer every day by the low wages immigration creates. Immigration is a billion-dollar industry. I’m sure the capitalists really thank you for all the help you’ve been giving them. Of course, in the short run, you are helping the immigrants too. But it’s at the expense of the American workers – 50 million of whom have no healthcare, whose work week keeps growing every year, whose wages never keep up with inflation, many of whom must work two jobs just to make ends meet. Of course, if you don’t give a dam about American workers then I suppose your altenative works pretty good. Capitalist immigration is an impediment to class struggle. You are, in effect an agent for capitalism.
fletcher: I believe in the class struggle, which means that I’m for social and economic justice for all in the long haul. The class struggle is not a quick fix or a get rich quick scheme. The class struggle for the Socialist Revolution is the one and only solution to the problems that are created by capitalist immigration. The class struggle is often bogged down by capitalist impediments, one of which is capitalist immigration. By supporting the proliferation of capitalist immigration you are impeding the Socialist Revolution. There is no alternative to class struggle. Loading the US with immigrants who refuse to join the class struggle, to help capitalism survive, is sabotaging the Socialist Revolution. It’s class treason.
me: “Do you really think that Mexican workers are going to heed your superior wisdom, see the "folly of their ways," and stay put to fight the Revolution back home as you have instructed them? Or do you really think that, after a couple hundred years or more of immigration to this country proceeding apace, despite every effort of nativists and bigots to impede it, that it will stop now?”
fletcher: Do you really think American workers are going to heed your superior wisdom, see the “folly in their ways”, welcome Mexican workers here so they can take our jobs and drive our wages down to the bottom? You know, for every swipe you take at me in defense of capitalist immigration, I can throw it right back at you. There’s an old saying. It goes like this: When your own house is disorganized, why not straiten it out instead of going over to your neighbors’ house and messing it up? The Mexican workers and peasants need to straighten the Mexican labor movement out instead of coming here and wrecking ours. That’s not nationalist, it’s Leninist.
fletcher: I can’t predict what’ll happen in a couple hundred years. However, if immigration to the US remains the world’s alternative to class struggle for two hundred more years, workers’ wages here will probably be more in sink with Mexican workers’ wages today. If you think that’s progress, then you really are a bourgeois.
me: “A more realistic and less counterproductive use of the limited breath in your body would be to agitate for strategies that build links of solidarity between workers everywhere, instead of walls of opposition and mutual animosity.”
fletcher: By all means we should agitate for strategies to build solidarity with the workers of the world. But, as I said earlier, solidarity begins with respect. I have a lot of respect for the workers who are involved in the class struggle in Mexico and anywhere else. However, I do not have sympathy or respect for workers who come to the US as an alternative to joining the class struggle. If I did, I may as well have respect and sympathy for scabs. After all, don’t scabs have to “improve their lots and feed their families” too?
fletcher
Could the workers from Mexico and the United States join forces to their advantage? I agree with you that people should not run from their problems. But let's be realistic, in most Latin American countries the people have been living a life of perpetual war and uprisings. Last major revolution in Mexico happened in the 20's. That is really not that long ago. Not to mention the majority of the Central American countries that were blatantly exploited by the U.S. and Europe. People in the United States have no idea what it is to suffer. Revolution is not a distant idea, it actually happens in Latin America. In other words, I think the people of Latin America are just simply tired of living in poverty. The call of survival supercedes any call for labor organization or activism. Is it not ideal for all of us Americanos to join together, instead of fighting one another. Your overseer is identitical to ours. Let's just say while people in the United States, like you, talk about revolution and progression of society through Marxist\Socialist ideals, people in Latin America have been fighting not only their corrupt governments, but neo-liberal economic policies that came from YOUR country and government. Good job, helping your fellow worker. Talking sure is nice and safe.
stayinhere
|
Stories contributed to this site are licensed under the
Creative Commons Non Commercial - Share Alike - By Attribution license
unless otherwise specified by the author.
|
